The legal nature and guarantee of the execution of the Provisional measures of the International Court of Justice in the light of the procedure of the Court and the performance of the countries

According to its statute, the International Court of Justice has the authority to issue temporary measures in order to protect the rights of the parties to the dispute and also to prevent the spread and deterioration of the dispute. From the beginning, these appointments have been faced with different interpretations of the related countries. Some countries considered these appointments non-binding; while others considered them binding. There was some disagreement in doctrine as well. In this article, while examining the legal nature of temporary measures, it has been discussed whether there is an enforceable guarantee in international law for the implementation of temporary measures or not? In addition, what is the procedure of countries in this regard?

The present research was carried out with a descriptive-analytical method.

According to the court's procedure, especially in the Lagrand case, the orders of temporary measures of the court are binding. Therefore, the addressee countries of these agreements are legally required to implement them. The agreement is a temporary measure, including the binding decisions of the court, and the countries use different methods to implement it, including unilateral measures, referring to the Security Council, referring to domestic courts, and countermeasures. The guarantee of the implementation of temporary measures is the same as the guarantee of the implementation of international law.